Yesterday, the Supreme Court of India reinstated a law dating back to the 1860s which mandates that anyone who "voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal" be punished by up to 10 years in prison.
This decision outlawing consensual homosexual sex was predictably hailed by Bryan Fischer who rejoiced that the ruling demonstrates that making homosexuality illegal "can be done."
"This is entirely right and entirely appropriate," Fischer said of the law. "Same-sex behavior is unnatural, it is against the order of nature: you just look at the plumbing and you can tell that, what body parts are designed for what use and you can see right away that this is contrary to nature."
"So that shows," he continued, speaking of the court ruling,"ladies and gentlemen that it can be done. It shows that this cultural trend that we're dealing with can be reversed, because for four years it was open season for homosexuals in India and now that drift away from cultural norms and moral norms, that's been reversed in the country of India ... Good law in India upheld by the Supreme Court":
Outraged that Time Magazine has named a Marxist like Pope Francis as its "Person of the Year," Glenn Beck responded on his radio program today by declaring that Sen. Ted Cruz was The Blaze's "Man of the Year."
Claiming that Time snubbed Cruz by not giving him the honor because "they don't want to give him any more power," Beck proclaimed that "progressives are fascists," which is why Time has named people like Hitler and Mussolini as the "Man of the Year" (for the record, Mussolini was never named "Man of the Year.")
Even though Cruz was among the finalists for the "Person of the Year," Beck is positive that he never had an actual chance of winning, even though "he's the guy who is going to affect our life, your life, much more than anybody else."
As such, Beck unilaterally decided that Cruz was the "Blaze Man of the Year":
On several recent "Prophetic Perspective on Current Events" programs, host Rick Joyner has gone on and on about the amazing prophetic gifts possessed by his close ally and friend, Bob Jones. This is not the Bob Jones of the infamous Bob Jones University, but rather a modern day prophet who met the Arch Angel Gabriel when he was only seven years old.
Jones appeared on Joyner's program just last week and on Monday's broadcast, Joyner spent the bulk of the program marveling about what a "legend" Jones is, calling him "one of the most remarkable prophetic voices ... in our times."
Joyner's relentless fawning over Jones reminded us of this short excerpt from John MacArthur's recent book "Strange Fire: The Danger of Offending the Holy Spirit with Counterfeit Worship," which presents a rather different view of Jones and the entire movement of self-proclaimed modern day prophets and apostles that he, Joyner and their ilk inhabit :
Perhaps the most bizarre admission of modern prophetic error came during an extended interchange between self-proclaimed prophets Mike Bickle and Bob Jones—two of the most well-known figures associated with the Kansas City Prophets. While discussing the topic of "visions and revelations," Bickle asked Jones to talk about the numerous times his prophecies have been wrong. Here is a transcript of their conversation:
Mike Bickle: "Tell them about the error in your life; the measure of error that you have and the measure of accuracy, 'cause I want people to understand a little bit about that?"
Bob Jones: "Well, I've had a lot of measure of error in my life. I remember once that I got into pride. Every time I get into pride, boy, Papa [God] sure knows how to pop my bubble. And I got into pride and called a church into a three-day fast and told them that certain things was going to happen, and they went into a three-day fast. It was terrible. And after that three-day fast—it was terrible, and the Spirit didn't even show up that night ...."
Mike Bickle: "You called people to a fast?"
Bob Jones: "I sure did, and it wasn't of the Lord; it was of my pride. I thought you could force the Lord to do something through fasting—boy, I found out real quick you couldn't. So there's a bunch of old saints that was ready to stone me, and so I was ready to get out of there and I went home like any good prophet, and I resigned. And I bawled and I squalled and I finally went to sleep and when I went to sleep the Lord come and took hold of my hand. And [in my vision] I was about like this little girl right here ... only I was in a lot worse shape because I had a Pamper [diaper] on and I had really messed it good. It was running down both of my legs. And the Lord had a hold of my hand and I was a bawlin' and a squallin'. . . . And I heard a voice sort of speak, puzzled I can say, 'What happened to Bob?' And my [heavenly] counselor spoke up and said, 'He had an accident."
Mike Bickle: "Spoke some wrong words."
Bob Jones: "'Yeah. He had an accident. He messed his Pamper real bad: And I think, 'Oh boy, here it comes.' And then I really got a surprise. A gentle, tender voice said, That boy needs more insurance. Let him know we've got him covered from them accidents. Give him a higher insurance policy.' That wasn't what I was looking for because I just resigned. 'Clean him up—tell him to go back into the body and prophesy twice as much. This time, he'll do what I'll tell him to: The next thing I knew I was back in bed, and boy, I come awake and man, I mean sweat was rolling down." ...
Mike Bickle: "So there has been errors; there's been a number of errors."
Bob Jones: "Oh, hundreds of them."
Jones's comments illustrate two of the primary problems with modern prophecy: it is chock-full of errors and inaccuracies, and it abounds with a level of sacrilegious lunacy that certainly does not find its source in God. Jones may have chosen just the right analogy in comparing his prophetic errors to a dirty diaper, but he is wrong about everything else. His claims to be a true prophet are obviously bogus. He does not have true visions of heaven. And God has certainly not given him "insurance" that allows him to get away with hundreds of errors as if it's no big deal.
Fewer than three years after that interview, Bob Jones was temporarily removed from public ministry by the Metro Vineyard Fellowship of Kansas City in Olathe, Kansas, whose senior pastor was none other than Mike Bickle. It had come to light that Jones was using false "prophecies" as a means of gaining trust from women whom he then abused sexually. "The sins for which [he was] removed from ministry include[d] using his gifts to manipulate people for his personal desires, sexual misconduct, rebelling against pastoral authority, slandering leaders and the promotion of bitterness within the body of Christ." He nevertheless returned to the charismatic limelight after a short hiatus, and as of this writing, he is still speaking in charismatic churches, presenting himself as an anointed prophet of God, and making prophecies that are demonstrably false and often patently ridiculous.' Thousands of gullible charismatics still hang on his every word—as if all the scandal and false prophesying never happened. The fact that Jones's online biography compares his ministry to that of the prophet Daniel only heightens the blasphemous nature of the whole fiasco.
Last week, a Colorado judge ruled that the owners of a bakery who were refusing to serve gay customers must do so or face fines. The owner is vowing to resist the ruling and Bryan Fischer voiced his support on his radio broadcast today, saying that the baker has become a victim of "The Secular Inquisition."
"Our secular theocrats have found this man guilty of heresy," Fischer said, "guilty of idolatry, guilty of blasphemy because he will not agree to the dogma of the secular theocrats. He is a heretic and he must be punished just like the Spanish Inquisition did for those that went astray from the dogma of the church in their day."
Last week, Glenn Beck was telling his audience of Tea Party activists that they "are the people that our Founders saw, the wise and the honest" who would rise up and save the nation when it was on the verge of collapse.
Today on his radio broadcast, Beck stepped it up a notch, telling his audience that "governments fear the individual," which is why the South African government imprisoned Nelson Mandela for twenty seven years. So, of course, Beck then told his audience that they are exactly the sorts of strong, courageous individuals that the government fears.
"They fear the next Nelson Mandela," he proclaimed, "and I tell you, you are the next Nelson Mandela. You are the next Martin Luther King. You are the next Gandhi. You are the next Abraham Lincoln. You are the next George Washington":
As we reported yesterday, we have been engaged in a battle with "Dr. Chaps" Gordon Klingenschmitt for several weeks now, stemming from Klingenschmitt's mistaken belief that the videos we have been posting featuring excerpts from his television program are violations of his copyright. As a result, Klingenschmitt has filed multiple copyright claims against our YouTube account and succeeded in shutting it down on two separate occasions.
In both instances, we have filed counter-claims against each and every alleged violation and every one has been resolved in our favor, resulting in our account being restored and the strike against us being removed.
Fed up with his on-going campaign to hamper our work, our lawyers have sent Klingenschmitt a cease and desist letter explicitly warning him that if he continues to file bogus copyright complaints against our YouTube account, legal action will be taken against him.
But, according to an interview Klingenschmitt conducted with David Pakman yesterday, it doesn't appear as if he has any intention of ceasing his campaign to permanently shut down our YouTube account by relentlessly filing bogus copyright complaints against our videos.
Insisting that we are "stealing" his content and trying to pass it off as our own in an effort to make money, Klingenschmitt amazingly asserted that we have been filing a "false counter-claim knowingly infringing on my copyright" by responding to his bogus copyright claims and getting our videos restored on YouTube.
As such, Klingenschmitt states that he has been in contact with lawyers of his own who have allegedly recommended that he sue us, but that is not a course of action that he intends to pursue at this time, he said, though he does intend to continue to file copyright claims against our videos and have them removed from YouTube.
When Pakman pointed out that we cannot be expected to moderate the thousands of comments our videos receive on YouTube nor be held responsible for what anonymous users might post in those comments, Klingenschmitt insisted that we do, in fact, moderate the comments and have removed comments from people supporting him. He even claims to have screencaps that prove it, which is pretty amazing considering that that has never happened.
Pakman's interview with Klingenschmitt was very fair and even-handed, but we would like to address the hypothetical argument he raised that the videos we post to YouTube might not be protected by Fair Use since we are not adding any commentary or criticism.
The entire purpose of posting these brief video clips to YouTube is so that they can serve as the focus in blog posts written here on RightWingWatch where we provide commentary, context, and criticism. Each video uploaded to our YouTube account makes clear that the clip is being posted as part of our regular news reporting to highlight and expose the outrageous statements made by key figures in the right-wing movement and includes commentary on the statements highlighted in the video. As the most popular video sharing site, posting our clips to YouTube makes our reporting available to the broadest swatch of people so that it can easily be shared with other bloggers, activists, and media outlets. In addition, our videos also include a link to the relevant RightWingWatch blog post in which it is being used, which contains further commentary, context, and explanation.
There can be no question that our video clips are used for an entirely different purpose (reporting and commentary) than Klingenschmitt's original purpose, which is to spread his radical, right-wing, anti-gay views and agenda, further making clear that our videos are protected by the doctrine of Fair Use.
Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) appeared on "The Steve Malzberg Show" yesterday to reiterate his warning to all Americans not to use the federal government's healthcare website because of cyber-security problems and the risk of identity theft.
During the course of the discussion, Brooks was asked about the possibility of Congress reaching any sort of budget deal, to which Brooks responded by asserting that if one is not reached, it will be because the Democrats have intentionally orchestrated a government shutdown in an attempt to distract voters from "the calamity known as Obamacare" heading into the 2014 elections ... or maybe even started a war.
Brook declared that 2014 is "going to be a disaster and so the Democrats, they need a shutdown, they need something dramatic - perhaps a war - something that will deflect public attention from how bad this socialized medicine system is, this scheme that they have put forth":
Several months ago, "Dr. Chaps" Gordon Klingenschmitt took issue with this blog and the videos we had been posting on YouTube, accusing us of issuing death threats against him because of random comments posted by anonymous users on YouTube.
As we explained at the time, we neither read nor moderate the comments posted on YouTube and we have a disclaimer right on our YouTube page which states that "we in no way support or endorse comments written by third parties and are in no way responsible for them."
On today's "Pray In Jesus Name" program, Klingenschmitt was worrying that the recent implementation of the "nuclear option" in the Senate would result in President Obama packing the federal courts with anti-gun judges. That somehow morphed into a discussion of state laws regarding the right to carry a weapon, which bizarrely ended with "Dr. Chaps" warning this blog specifically that he recently obtained a concealed carry permit.
Declaring that he is a twenty year military veteran and was captain of the rifle team in high school, Klingenschmitt went on to inform us that he recently got a concealed carry permit, saying "so for those of you watching on RightWingWatch and issuing death threats against me, just know that if you come to my home and you threaten my wife, that I will defend myself and my wife."
On the bright side, he did also promise "to pray for your soul, I pray that you go to heaven":
On his radio broadcast today, Bryan Fischer spent the better part of one segment railing against the dangers of marijuana and saying that it should never be legalized because it's use violates the teachings of the Bible.
Citing Paul's admonition in Ephesians 5:18 that believers should "not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit," Fisher said marijuana should be illegal because people "are not to be under control of anything except for the Holy Spirit."
This would, of course, also apply to alcohol, which Fischer presumably thinks ought to be illegal as well ... as should hypnosis, apparently, which Fischer also warned against.
"I'm primarily opposed to marijuana use," Fischer said, "just for the same reason I'm opposed to drunkenness, same reason I'm opposed to cocaine use and heroin use: it's turning control of your humanity over to something other than God."
WND contributor Jack Cashill recently released a book entitled "'If I had a Son': Race, Guns, and the Railroading of George Zimmerman," in which he argues that Zimmerman is a hero who has been unfairly maligned by the media.
Last week, Cashill appeared on TheDoveTV to promote the book and was asked what he thought about the possibility that the Justice Department might file civil rights charges against Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin. Cashill was not supportive, to say the least, primarily because "George Zimmerman may have been the least racist person in the state of Florida."
In fact, Cashill stated, Zimmerman was a civil rights hero and prosecuting him "would be like going after Nelson Mandela on civil rights, or Mother Theresa":
For the last several months, spurred on by the publication of Mark Levin's "The Liberty Amendments," right-wing activists have been floating the idea of convening a "Convention of States" through which representatives of the individuals states would gather together for a convention to amend the Constitution and reign in the federal government.
Under Article V of the Constitution, "legislatures of two thirds of the several states" have the power to "call a convention for proposing amendments" and the idea to convene such a convention has been warmly embraced by people like David Barton who has promoted it not only on his radio program but also while filling in as host on Glenn Beck's television program.
Recently, Beck himself has begun promoting it as well and today his The Blaze website reported that nearly 100 right-wing legislators from 32 states met in Virginia over the weekend as the first steps toward turning this fringe fantasy into reality:
Close to 100 legislators from 32 states met in Mount Vernon, Va., Saturday to discuss the possibility of adding amendments to the U.S. Constitution through a convention of the states.
Lawmakers on Saturday discussed term limits on U.S. lawmakers and certain limits on federal taxation and spending as possible amendments, Red Millennial noted.
State legislators stressed Saturday the bipartisan nature of support for the discussed amendments, citing a recent poll that shows 74 percent of Americans support a balanced budget amendment while another 75 percent support congressional term limits.
Saturday’s Mount Vernon meeting was organized by Indiana state Sen. David Long and Wisconsin Rep. Chris Kapenga.
There has been growing support for the idea of a convention, but there is also healthy skepticism.
Still, regardless of whether one thinks it’s a realistic idea, Virginia and South Carolina have both pre-filed applications for a convention, meaning some are taking the idea very seriously.
Saturday’s meeting represents the most recent attempt by legislators to discuss seriously the possibility of adding amendments to the Constitution through a convention.
For the last month, we have been locked in a battle with "Dr. Chaps" Gordon Klingenschmitt stemming from a series of bogus claims that he filed against our YouTube channel, claiming that we had been stealing and misrepresenting his copyrighted content.
In early November, Klingenschmitt filed multiple claims against our account, resulting in our entire account being terminated by YouTube. We immediately filed counter-claims against all of Klingenschmitt's complaints, asserting that our videos were protected by Fair Use and, two weeks later, after Klingenschmitt failed to pursue his bogus claims in court, our account was restored.
But just one day later, Klingenschmitt filed another series of false copyright claims against our account and got our account terminated once again. Just as before, we filed another round of counter-claims against all of his copyright notices and, late last week, our YouTube account was restored for the second time.
As such, last week Klingenschmitt was mailed a cease and desist letter [PDF] on our behalf informing him about Fair Use and explicitly warning him that if he continues to file bogus copyright complaints against our YouTube account, legal action will be taken against him:
Over the past several weeks, you have filed a series of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) takedown notices with YouTube targeting video clips taken from your video program, PIJN News. DMCA takedown notices only should be lodged when a copyright owner has a legitimate belief that the challenged material is infringing their copyrighted works. You have no legitimate basis to hold such a belief and, therefore, should not have lodged the notices with YouTube. The videos you have challenged are protected by the fair use doctrine and therefore are non-infringing. 17 U.S.C. § 107 (“the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . for purposes such as criticism [and] comment . . . is not an infringement of copyright.)
Based on this legal analysis, your conduct and public statements, it appears to PFAW that you have lodged the DMCA notices not out of any genuine concerns for your copyrights, but rather for the purpose of causing YouTube to take down the RWW YouTube channel. You have publicized your campaign, and made clear that your efforts are motivated by your political disagreements with both RWW and some of the independent comments posted on the RWW’s YouTube account. RWW has challenged every takedown notice pursuant to YouTube’s counter-notification process, and every video has been restored following the statutory waiting period without any legal action for copyright infringement having been initiated by you. Nonetheless, you continued to submit separate notices, for multiple videos which appears to PFAW to be calculated to rapidly take down the account and disrupt PFAW’s business. Because YouTube has a publicly-stated policy of taking an account offline after three DMCA notices, your unfounded copyright allegations have caused YouTube to take down the RWW account entirely – twice. Based on your public statements, there is little doubt that this was your intended goal.
Your conduct with respect to the RWW YouTube channel must cease immediately. You are on notice that PFAW’s use of your videos constitutes fair use and that the DMCA provides that misuse of its procedures to shut down lawful speech can result in liability for “any damages, including attorneys’ fees and costs” that result. A number of other legal remedies also are available.
Our videos are protected by Fair Use and we intend to continue our efforts to report on the radical views and agenda of Religious Right activists. As such, we will keep posting videos like this of Klingenschmitt railing against Obamacare on his program today and repenting for a nation that treats "the president as if he is a healing god [when] he is not; he's an imposter, he's a liar, and he causes cancer through his policies":
On his radio broadcast today, Bryan Fischer agreed with a caller who demanded that Republicans in the House of Representatives "take a stand" and impeach President Obama even if he won't be convicted and removed by the Senate.
Fischer readily agreed, saying that even though there is no chance that Obama would actually be removed from office, House Republicans ought to go ahead and impeach him any way ... for educational purposes.
"There could be a powerful educational benefit from the House filing articles of impeachment," Fischer said, because "it would give the House the opportunity to make their case why this man needs to be removed from office ... And so they're be tremendous educational value in that; it may not go anywhere in the Senate ... but it may be time to recognize there's an educational benefit here":
While one week he is screaming that America has gone insane and been engulfed by darkness, the next he is declaring that he and his audience were chosen by God to save the nation ... and that is where he is now, as he asserted on his television broadcast last night that even though our entire society is on the verge of complete collapse, Beck remains optimistic because his audience of Tea Party activists are just the sort of people the Founding Fathers envisioned would one day finally create the perfect America.
"I tell you now," Beck said, "we are the people that our Founders saw, the wise and the honest. They knew it would fall apart, they knew the system would have to be re-booted and in 1822, [Thomas] Jefferson and [John] Adams are going back and forth and they said 'yeah, but trust the people, trust the people, they'll see what we were doing and they'll do it better'":
Recently it was reported that Republicans in Congress have been receiving training on how to communicate with female voters and, more importantly, learning what not to do when running against a female opponent.
The Family Research Council's Tony Perkins was asked about this effort by Newsmax's Steve Malzberg yesterday and it made us wish that the GOP would bring Perkins in to help them with their talking points because, as he sees it, the entire thing is utterly unnecessary since it is the Democrats who are really waging the "war on women" ... through the contraception mandate:
Let me tell you where the war on women is being waged. It is the Democratic Party that is putting an ideological emphasis on, let's take the contraception mandate that they're pushing, which is going to cost jobs, going to cost women the ability to provide for their families, it's going to take away their health care because they're putting organizations and businesses in a position of having to choose between their religious freedoms, their conscience, and providing healthcare for their workers. Look, who needs to apologize for that are not Republicans, it's the Democrats, it's the President that's pushing this failed policy that's kicking families off of coverage from health care and potentially ending their jobs. Now, what do Republicans have to apologize for because they've been fighting that? I don't think they have anything to apologize for.
One of the main points that we try to make whenever we write about David Barton is not just that he is a pseudo-historian who has a problem telling the truth, but that he is also a borderline theocrat who believes that our nation's laws ought to be literally based upon the Bible.
During his recent appearance on "The Gospel Truth" with Andrew Wommack, Barton explained that Scott Peterson, who was convicted of having murdered his wife and unborn child back in 2002, should not have received the death penalty because there were no eyewitnesses to the crime.
Citing Deuteronomy 17:6, which states that "on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death," Barton argued that even though Peterson was guilty of murder, he should not have received a death sentence because there were not two or more witnesses to the crime as required by the Bible: